Commentary on pro-family issues in the media, politics and in the public square.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

St. Paul decides kids don't need a mom and a dad, calls it "family values"

The City of St. Paul yesterday joined Minneapolis and Duluth in proclaiming that adult wants trump children's needs, by approving an ordinance for a domestic partner registry that recognizes same-sex partnerships.

The Pioneer Press reported on the City Council's unanimous decision signed by Mayor Chris Coleman, and the ensuing celebration at Camp, a homosexual hot spot in downtown St. Paul (Same-sex partnerships get St. Paul's blessing). The story gushed about the symbolic value of the ordinance, which carries no legal weight. Several times in the story the new ordinance was referred to as a "steppingstone" to supporters' unnamed but obvious real goal: legalization of same-sex marriage in Minnesota. So let there be no pretense that this ordinance is about something else.

Reporter Tad Veznermade a big point about the number of same-sex couples present at the celebration who had been together for many years, some of whom talked about their "commitment of love together." I've no doubt that they truly are loving and committed to one another, and that their relationships are deeply meaningful to them, and I respect them for that.

But in all the celebrating reported by the Pioneer Press, not one mention was made of children or of the effect on children of this decision to give social recognition to relationships that intentionally elevate the wants and preferences of adults over the need of children for a mom and a dad.

In approving this ordinance, the City of St. Paul has inverted the commitment that marriage has stood for, the social purpose that marriage has served, since the beginning of human history -- a forward-looking commitment to what's best for children and the next generation over personal adult wants and preferences in the present.

Instead, St. Paul, like Minneapolis and Duluth, has officially declared that satisfying adult preferences is more important than ensuring what's best for children and the next generation. Clueless to the irony, Council Member Dave Thune calls this "family values."

To the people of St. Paul who truly care about family values and understand that kids need a mom and a dad: Take note of what your city council members and mayor have done to undermine marriage and the family, without regard for the impact on children and future generations, and hold them accountable when it's time for their performance review in the next election.

23 comments:

Your belief system isn't fact, its opinion. Purposeful parenting, wanted parents, for wanted children, unwanted, abanded, or purposefully brought up with love, guidence, open hearts and minds, is what makes for good citizens in the world.

Your lifestyle is NOT the only lifestyle, and should NOT be the only one on law and protected.

I would ask you how many adopted children do you have? how many families that you know have abandoned their children because they did not agree with your lifestyle!

colonizing, limiting children, and manipulation of extreme religion has proven to milions of people seaking help at thereapists for MIlIONS OF dollars to boot!

YOUR FAMILY IS NOT THE ONLY FAMILY WITH VALUES!

how self centered, and self absorbed does one to be to force everyone on this planet to believe in only thier ways? How judgemental does one has to be? and how unchrist like is that? I know that MY CHRIST would not approve of that sort of disturbed remdition of his preaching.

Yes power to the people, all people, in all shapes and sizes. In the country where One set of "values" isn't the only set. Where there are homes for unwanted children, where children who are very much wanted and can be cared for are borned.

Power to the millions of people that make the conscience step to parenting, and not just get married and have children because they are "suppose" to.

Power to the parents who allow their children to grow up with an open mind, and the power to have differences then they have.

Power to the higher educated children that come from those homes.

Power to the people and homes that bring better economic state to all the other people, even those that do not support them.

Power to that money that will help even the bigoted raised closed off children, who will only be allowed one thought, one line of thinking, and not be allowed to make choices for themselves. For even those people need food, housing, and care.

Power to the people all people. People who spend their time giving to others, physically, mentally, and emotionally. And do not spend all their money and all money donated to them to promote others from living thier lives because they do not agree with them.

I wonder how much money has been used to stop same sex marriage that could have acutally built a school, could have given the mother who had to give up their child to be donated so they could keep it? How much money has been spent to try and colonize others? How much money has been spent to try and force others, and the law to protect their behaviors and block others? when they could have done

Christs work.

Just a thought, just an opinion.

For my Christ would not spend time and effort money and time to colonize anyone.

I know that God is not the God you use for power and greed. I know the God you use for fear onto others to produce that power and greed is not what Christ is about. I know that your perception is only one.

To force Religon onto law is colonizing which is a form of slavery.

Religion is a behavior a choice a lifestyle.

I have made the choice to be a christain. To live with christ open loving and NON JUDGEMENTAL life. For only God is to judge.

I will never for anyone to live my way, but you will try and try and try again to force others to live your way.

I know Christ the same way you do, in my choice of religion. I do not agree, aprove, support your version of Christainity. I find it apalling, and it goes against all things holy in my life. It goes against all things of Value in my life, all things that I cherrish and worship. I find it litterally sinful. To the point of where it has made me cry, shake and fear for the lives of others.

But guess what? I think its ok for you to have your opinion of your choice of GOD and Life.

For as long as there is law to protect all beings to have choice you can not colonize others.

that is my opinion.

I would go as far as saying my opinion my dream is for you to open your heart to the true Jesus, Christ and love. Perhaps one day you will find him, and in my opinion all the sin will then be washed away from you.

As you wish for all the people you say are living sinful lives. As your opinion is the same as mine just in very different base of what Christianity is.

I think a better answer than Elaine's would be, is how do YOU know christ, how do YOU know what the bible says, and what should be put down INTO LAW. Because we live in a state that is seperated from the church. And for that matter alone, not because of religion that I would argue with you but BECAUSE you put your religion onto others, that is where elaine and I agree, she goes on about how you force your opinion, how the religion here is stated as law, as fact and how indeed your people have said that if sexual orientation was put into crime laws as hate crime that it would be the only thing that is covered for behavior, when indeed religion is a behavior and your opinion is indeed covered by law which it should be, along with those who differe than you.

and you DO NOT have the corner market on "FAMILY VALUES" for there is many a good way to bring up children and make good citizens out of them.

Claude and Elaine - It's interesting that your comments are so focused on religion and, in Claude's case on bashing it, when no mention is made in the blog post about religion or faith or God. Why do you insist on changing the subject?

Claude - Where's your evidence that children do as well without a mom and a dad as they do with them? Are you saying that kids don't need a mom and a dad?

You seem to have a genuine faith, which I respect. My question to you previously about how you know Christ was not a challenge but an honest attempt to understand where you're coming from.

Based on your response, I wonder whether the Christ you believe in is the Jesus Christ revealed in the Bible. That Christ loves us so much that though he himself was guiltless, he gave himself up to be tortured and executed on a cross in our place to forgive our sins - including yours and mine.

He rose from the dead to free us from the control of sin (rebellion against God) in our lives and enable us to live a new life in obedience to his good and life-giving standards for living found in the Bible, through faith in him.

Or do you believe in a Christ you know through some other means, who teaches love but doesn't proclaim truth or require obedience to his Word, who more comfortably fits your requirements and justifies your choices?

Such a Christ may be comforting, but is he TRUE? Did he create you, or did you create him?

I pray you know and follow the Lord Jesus Christ revealed in the Bible, who said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

"IN 1962 MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR KICKED GOD, THE BIBLE AND PRAYER OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS..." And 10 Other Myths About Church and State "Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution."

"Separation of church and state is a communist idea."

"Separation of church and state is anti-religion, and only atheists support it."

Misguided clerics and short-sighted politicians sometimes say things like this about the constitutional principle of church-state separation. But a quick review of history demonstrates that these charges just aren't true.

To help Americans be on guard against such distortions, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has compiled a list of the most common myths about separation of church and state along with the facts.

MYTH 1: Separation of church and state is not in the U.S. Constitution.

It is true that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)

Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle?

Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."

Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle of church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First Amendment's religion clauses do they separate church and state.

MYTH 2: Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists was a mere courtesy and should not be regarded as important.

Religious Right activists have tried for decades to make light of Jefferson's "wall of separation" response to the Danbury Baptists, attempting to dismiss it as a hastily written note designed to win the favor of a political constituency. But a glance at the history surrounding the letter shows they are simply wrong.

As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.

Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state.

(Some Religious Right propagandists have take to outright fabrications in order to refute the Jefferson metaphor. They sometimes claim that Jefferson described his wall as "one- directional," forbidding government intervention into religion, but allowing church intrusion into government. In fact, Jefferson used no such language, as the text of the Danbury letter available from Americans United attests.)

MYTH 3: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT AN AMERICAN PRINCIPLE BUT IS FOUND IN ARTICLE 53 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOVIET UNION.

This lie about separation of church and state still frequently espoused by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson is perhaps the most offensive to church-state separationists because it attempts to taint a vital American principle with the brush of communism. Even a brief review of the facts proves that this statement is nonsense. The modern Soviet state came into being after the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Soviet constitution was rewritten several times, and more recent versions included American-style guarantees of freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. (These provisions, of course, were never obeyed by the Soviet government.)

Article 124 of the country's 1947 constitution has been translated by some scholars to read, "In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."

Since Jefferson coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in 1802, a full 145 years before the Soviet provision was written, it is obviously incorrect to suggest that the Soviets pioneered the separation principle.

MYTH 2: Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists was a mere courtesy and should not be regarded as important.

Religious Right activists have tried for decades to make light of Jefferson's "wall of separation" response to the Danbury Baptists, attempting to dismiss it as a hastily written note designed to win the favor of a political constituency. But a glance at the history surrounding the letter shows they are simply wrong.

As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."

At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.

Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state.

(Some Religious Right propagandists have take to outright fabrications in order to refute the Jefferson metaphor. They sometimes claim that Jefferson described his wall as "one- directional," forbidding government intervention into religion, but allowing church intrusion into government. In fact, Jefferson used no such language, as the text of the Danbury letter available from Americans United attests.)

MYTH 3: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT AN AMERICAN PRINCIPLE BUT IS FOUND IN ARTICLE 53 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOVIET UNION.

This lie about separation of church and state still frequently espoused by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson is perhaps the most offensive to church-state separationists because it attempts to taint a vital American principle with the brush of communism. Even a brief review of the facts proves that this statement is nonsense. The modern Soviet state came into being after the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Soviet constitution was rewritten several times, and more recent versions included American-style guarantees of freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. (These provisions, of course, were never obeyed by the Soviet government.)

Article 124 of the country's 1947 constitution has been translated by some scholars to read, "In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."

Since Jefferson coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in 1802, a full 145 years before the Soviet provision was written, it is obviously incorrect to suggest that the Soviets pioneered the separation principle.

MYTH 7: THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO KEEP THE STATE FROM INTERFERING WITH THE CHURCH, NOT TO BAR RELIGIOUS GROUPS FROM CO-OPTING THE GOVERNMENT.

Jefferson and Madison held an expansive view of the First Amendment, arguing that church-state separation would protect both religion and government.

Madison specifically feared that a small group of powerful churches would join together and seek establishment or special favors from the government. To prevent this from happening, Madison spoke of the desirability of a "multiplicity of sects" that would guard against government favoritism.

Jefferson and Madison did not see church-state separation as an "either or" proposition or argue that one institution needed greater protection than the other. As historian Garry Wills points out in his 1990 book Under God, Jefferson believed that no worthy religion would seek the power of the state to coerce belief. In his notes he argued that disestablishment would strengthen religion, holding that it would "oblige its ministers to be industrious [and] exemplary." The state likewise was degraded by an established faith, Jefferson asserted, because establishment made it a partner in a system based on bribery of religion.

Madison also argued that establishment was no friend to religion or the state. He insisted that civil society would be hindered by establishment, charging that attempts to enforce religious belief by law would weaken government. In his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison stated flatly that "Religion is not helped by establishment, but is hurt by it."

MYTH 8: MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR, AN ATHEIST, SINGLE-HANDEDLY REMOVED GOD, THE BIBLE AND PRAYER FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN 1962.

Atheist leader Madalyn Murray O'Hair played no role in the Supreme Court's school prayer decision of 1962.

In the Engel v. Vitale case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6- 1 against New York's "Regents' prayer," a "non-denominational" prayer state education officials had composed for public schoolchildren to recite.

The government-sponsored religious devotion was challenged in court by a group of parents from New Hyde Park some atheists, some believers. O'Hair was not involved in the case at all.

One year later, a case originated by a Philadelphia-area man named Ed Schempp challenging mandatory Bible reading in Pennsylvania schools reached the Supreme Court. At the same time, Murray O'Hair was challenging a similar practice as well as the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in Maryland public schools. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and in 1963 ruled 8-1 that devotional Bible reading or other government-sponsored religious activities in public schools are unconstitutional.

The Engel and Schempp cases were a result of the changing religious landscape of the United States. As religious minorities grew more confident of their rightful place in American society, they came to resent the de facto Protestant flavor in many public schools. Litigation was inevitable. The high court's rulings striking down mandatory prayer and devotional Bible reading in public schools would have occurred if O'Hair had never been born. The controversial Texas atheist serves as a convenient villain for Religious Right propagandists who hate religious liberty and church-state separation.

It is also important to remember that neither of these rulings removed prayer or Bible reading from public schools. Truly voluntary religious exercises in public schools have never been held illegal. The rulings of the early '60s simply prevented the government, through the public schools, from intervening in sensitive religious matters. Voluntary student-initiated Bible study and prayer clubs were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1990, when the justices upheld the Equal Access Act, a federal law that permits students to form religion clubs at public high schools under certain conditions.

The rulings from the 1960s are also not hostile toward religion, as the justices took pains to point out. In the Abington decision, Justice Tom Clark wrote for the court majority, "[I]t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment."

MYTH 9: EVER SINCE PRAYER WAS REMOVED FROM SCHOOLS, PUBLIC SCHOOL PERFORMANCE HAS DECLINED AND SOCIAL ILLS HAVE INCREASED.

This argument is a common fallacy of logic known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, or, the assumption that if two events occur in sequence, that the first must have caused the second. (The phrase is Latin for "after this, therefore on account of this.")

It is true that some indices of school performance have decreased since 1962, but absolutely no evidence exists linking these developments to the school prayer issue. In fact, the drop has been caused by wholly unrelated factors. SAT scores, for example, are lower today simply because more students from a wider variety of socio-economic backgrounds take the test. In the years preceding 1962, the SAT was taken almost exclusively by upper class, well-educated students from wealthy backgrounds.

The problems experienced in American society today are due to complex socio-economic factors. It is simplistic thinking to blame every societal problem from the increase in teenage pregnancies to the escalating divorce rate on a lack of required prayer in schools.

It should also be pointed out that not all indicators of American society have declined since 1962. Life expectancy, for instance, is up, as is the average standard of living. Impressive medical advances have occurred in the past 30 years, and labor- reducing technologies are commonplace. School prayer advocates are quick to blame every bad thing that has occurred since 1962 on the prayer ruling, but they never mention the positive developments, which, under their premise, must also be a result of the decisions. The prayer and Bible reading decisions did cause two clear-cut results: Families gained greater religious liberty and the right to decide which religious exercises their children participate in, and church-state separation was strengthened.

MYTH 10: SCHOOL-SPONSORED PRAYER AND BIBLE READING TOOK PLACE IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS BEFORE 1962.

Several state supreme courts had already removed government- sponsored school prayer and Bible reading from public schools prior to 1962. The Illinois Supreme Court, for example, declared mandatory public school religious exercises unconstitutional in 1910. By the time of the Engel decision, public school-sponsored religious exercises were most common in Northeastern and Southern states. Some Western and Midwestern states had already removed the practices.

A 1960 survey by Americans United determined that only five states had required Bible reading laws on the books. Twenty-five states had laws authorizing "optional" Bible reading. Eleven states had declared the practice unconstitutional. (The remaining states had no laws on the subject.) The trend was clearly running in favor of a voluntary phase out of these practices.

MYTH 11: THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECLARED THAT SECULAR HUMANISM IS A RELIGION, AND SECULAR HUMANISM IS THE ESTABLISHED RELIGION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

In a footnote to the Supreme Court's 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God is Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." The Torcaso case dealt with religious tests for public office; it had nothing to do with public schools. The justice's comment is far from a finding that humanism is being taught in the schools.

The Supreme Court and lower federal courts have ruled repeatedly that public schools and other government agencies may not establish "a religion of secularism" any more than they can promote any other religious viewpoint. The courts have decreed that public schools must be religiously neutral. Government neutrality toward religion is not the same thing as government hostility toward religion. They are synonymous only in the view of Religious Right groups that label as hostility any action by government that does not favor their beliefs.

Furthermore, the percentage of Americans who call themselves secular humanists is very small. It is not possible that such a minuscule group could take control of the entire public school system, which is highly decentralized and controlled by local school boards chosen by the voters or their representatives. "Secular humanism" is a bogeyman the Religious Right uses to attack public education.

I have been schooled on the history of the christain churches, I have extensive knowledge of the many many many books of the bible. I know the time lines of when they were all written, I know the men (men stated again not God and I will state again men) who wrote the bible.

I am schooled in science as well.

I have faith. My faith. Its my choice, my right as a citizen of the united states of america. It is NOT your faith. Therefore I do NOT have to have the same opinions as you.

Your behavior and lifestyle is in my faith a Sin. I would be appalled by anyone that I would let close to me if they made the lifestyle as you.

My faith is strong.

You have the right to have your version of your Faith. And to differ from mine.

YOUR faith is not the only one true faith. It is for you personally. And only you personally.

That is what makes this nation strong.

Church and State is strong, and real. Just because you say something is right or not real for you doesn't make it so.

I am positive that no one here will "believe" this wonderful project, and report of studies. But, I will force myself to hope that I will be able to put out info and that it might lead to open minds.

there is study apon study to show that children of same sex coupls turn out just fine. In most cases the showing of further education is much higher, the productivity is much higher, the self images and issues of painful mental issues of growing up that turn up issues like depression, body issues traumas, food disorders, and many more are much less in same sex couples, some would use those numbers and could easily say that same sex parenting is BETTER. But I understand the numbers. I understand that there are less gay people in the population than there are straight people. I understand that a couple that go out of their way to adopt, or to have a child, by other means than the "old fashion" way, will think out their parenting, and not have a child that is unwanted. So its a different situation. and not to be compared to all that is in the world. And by all means there are gay parents that can be just as bad as straight. Just less why? because the population is less.

here is a study and I know that you might think its all "propaganda" but it isn't.

The seperation of church and state is a polital principle. It is upheld in court. It is derived from our first admendment.

To have the right to be of a religious state, is to make sure that all people have the right to their religious choices.

Your choice is only one. I applaude it. I also applaude all Religions and the choice to have no religious practices in ones life.

You can not dictate or say what is the correct religious state for anyone but yourself. I wish you well in that choice and lifestyle you have made the choice to live in.

Separation of church and state in the United StatesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchThe separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court,[1] though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle.[2][3][4][5][6]

:::Claude and Elaine - It's interesting that your comments are so focused on religion and, in Claude's case on bashing it, when no mention is made in the blog post about religion or faith or God. Why do you insist on changing the subject?:::

Everything that is done out of the MFC, Focus on the family, and all affliates is done based on the radical extremist religion that is followed by the flock that are members. Which is their choice, and by all means their right of a lifestyle of such a choice in our country. I support your choice and your lifestyle, no matter how much I disagree. And find fundamentally wrong to the core of all souls on this planet, and although I find it dangerous to the upbringing to all women and children as oppressive and politically, greed and power based. Although I find it this way, I support your choice of such a lifestyle. For like you can can seperate the sin from the sinner. I can live with the sins you create and allow your room to live differently than I do.

The biggest difference is that I do not try and go to law to force you to live within my religious beliefs which is not Christain and not yours.

John, I find your response to Elaine very belittling. Are you saying that your sect of Religion is better or the "one" to follow? with tons of major religions around the world. and billions of people that do not follow your religion, I would say with humble response that there are many ways to do things in life. here are some and not all: